<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Cross posted here as well – FYI</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">I'm cross posting this here
because it was suggested I do this, after I <BR>originally posted this to
the CSCG list. To give context - some of our <BR>members are concerned that
there hasnt been enough discussion and want to <BR>delay consideration until we
have clarity about WEF's objectives and plans, <BR>intentions etc, and formally
announce their intentions including decoupling <BR>from NetMundial. I suggested
those in Istanbul seek another meeting if <BR>possible to clarify matters; but
after some thought I posted this. I think <BR>this explains where we are at from
my perspective.<BR><BR>Thinking more about this -<BR><BR>while I would still
urge you to meet with WEF and seek more clarity, I think <BR>our dilemma is
this.<BR><BR>WEF dont want to be clear about the process because they want it to
be seen <BR>that the incoming committee defines the process. So we are in a
Catch-22 <BR>here – it they define it, they are not being bottom-up, if they
don’t, we <BR>don’t think we have enough clarity to participate.<BR><BR>WEF want
to move quickly so they have something to show for their efforts. <BR>they
expect to have all other committee members in place next week, the only
<BR>exception being civil society. They have agreed to us having more time, and
<BR>also to us choosing all CS members. Now if we ask for more time, they will
<BR>see the strength of the project and their commitments at risk and our
<BR>involvement as unreliable.<BR><BR>This is particularly so because we really
dont know how much time it would <BR>take us to decide whether we want to commit
or not. I doubt there will be <BR>any more clarity in one week, or three weeks,
or 3 months. So I actually <BR>think we might have a lot to lose by delaying,
and nothing to gain. The <BR>nature of this initiative as something new and
outside our normal range of <BR>experience means that we probably have to take a
risk, or alternatively <BR>determine right now to disengage.<BR><BR>I think we
should take that risk, and stick to our timetable or something <BR>workable very
close to it. In doing so, to minimise our risk, we can <BR>continue to engage
and select candidates, but communicate with this process <BR>some misgivings and
concerns. We can indicate an intention to withdraw <BR>unless certain
developments are committed to.<BR><BR>So by all means talk to them about more
time, but I am not sure whether it <BR>will help. I know that things are
difficult at IGF with so many meetings and <BR>poor wifi, and if it helps we
could delay a couple of days and shorten the <BR>nomination period. But to be
honest I dont think we are going to have any <BR>more clarity then, or within a
month. So we may have to engage and be part <BR>of the development, rather than
waiting to react to something which really <BR>shouldn’t be developed much
further without our involvement anyway.<BR><BR>Typical difficulties at the
beginning. I understand the caution. Let’s use <BR>the caution to define our
concerns and communicate them as we engage. That’s <BR>my thoughts, but the
decision is yours.<BR><BR>Ian</FONT><BR>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=kichango@gmail.com
href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">Mawaki Chango</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 04, 2014 9:32 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=governance@lists.igcaucus.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">Internet Governance</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=nb@bollow.ch href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">Norbert
Bollow</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Fw: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG should be
engaged on WEF's initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF)</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV class=gmail_default style="FONT-SIZE: small">Dear All,</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_default style="FONT-SIZE: small"> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_default style="FONT-SIZE: small">In light of the position taken
by the JNC below, please be advised that if the CSCG go forward with the
decision to participate in this WEF process --which still is being considered
but not adopted by the group yet-- the formal announcement of nominees, if and
when that occurs, <SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif">will have to include the
acknowledgement that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out from
participation in this particular selection process" (or something along those
lines.)</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_default style="FONT-SIZE: small"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_default style="FONT-SIZE: small"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif">We were set to proceed
roughly by COB today, UTC time, if everything goes as planned. So if you have
any strong views about this, I'd invite you to post them now, maybe until
tonight. Thank you.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_default style="FONT-SIZE: small"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_default style="FONT-SIZE: small"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif">Mawaki</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">
<DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(80,0,80)">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34)"><SPAN
style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif"> </DIV></SPAN></DIV></DIV></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></DIV></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Norbert Bollow <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"
target=_blank>nb@bollow.ch</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">For
transparency on a key position taken by JNC in CSCG, and with the<BR>idea to
possibly also inspire discussion on this question in IGC and<BR>BestBits which
doesn't seem to started here
yet...<BR><BR>Greetings,<BR>Norbert<BR>co-convenor, Just Net
Coalition<BR><BR><BR>Begin forwarded message:<BR><BR>Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014
12:54:39 +0200<BR>From: Norbert Bollow <<A href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"
target=_blank>nb@bollow.ch</A>><BR>Subject: [cs-coord] On whether CSCG
should be engaged on WEF's<BR>initiative (was Re: Timetable re WEF)<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:13:54 +1000<BR>"Ian Peter" <<A
href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
target=_blank>ian.peter@ianpeter.com</A>> wrote:<BR><BR>> Tuesday
September 2 ASAP after 8am - report to member groups and open<BR>>
discussion focussed on whether we should participate and if so under<BR>>
what conditions.<BR><BR>After some very intense discussions, the current JNC
view is that CSCG<BR>as such should not be doing selections for WEF's
initiative (whatever it<BR>ends up being called.) The reasoning is as
follows:<BR><BR>* It is fine for WEF or any other business group or anyone
really to<BR> create an initiative in any way they like, with themselves
in the<BR> steering seat, as long as they don't explicitly or implicitly
claim<BR> it to be a multistakeholder initiative.<BR><BR>* Changing the
name of WEF's “Netmundial Initiative” to something else,<BR> for example
the idea of “Net World” that WEF mentioned, it a good and<BR> positive
step but that's not likely to result in a very deep and<BR> profound
change in how the initiative is perceived and framed now that<BR> it has
made a big splash under the “Netmundial Initiative” name,<BR> unless it
is also clearly rebranded as an initiative of a business<BR> community
as opposed to a multistakeholder initiative. An initiative<BR> of a
business community can of course still invite some civil society<BR>
people to participate in a sense of advising them, that is perfectly<BR>
fine. They can invite some whom they already know, and/or if they
then<BR> still have gaps, I would in my personal capacity be happy to
make<BR> suggestions about who else they might consider to
invite.<BR><BR>* However CSCG should not be involved in making selections of
civil<BR> society representatives for a “steering committee” which
really has<BR> only an advisory capacity while the real decision making
authority<BR> remains in the hands of WEF and its business members. This
is in<BR> contrast the (real) NetMundial process where it was
the<BR> multistakeholder committees which had the decision-making
authority<BR> to steer the process. We should not involve CSCG in a way
would<BR> contribute to creating the false impression of WEF's
initiative being<BR> the same kind of multistakeholder
activity.<BR><BR>Greetings,<BR>Norbert<BR></DIV></DIV><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list <A
href="mailto:cs-coord@lists.bestbits.net"
target=_blank>cs-coord@lists.bestbits.net</A><BR><BR>For list archives, member
roster, unsubscription and other functions
visit:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit"
target=_blank>http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit</A><BR><BR>Translate
this email: <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target=_blank>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A>
<BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
<A href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target=_blank>governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A><BR>To be removed from the
list, visit:<BR> <A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target=_blank>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</A><BR><BR>For all other
list information and functions, see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target=_blank>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</A><BR>To edit your
profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<BR> <A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target=_blank>http://www.igcaucus.org/</A><BR><BR>Translate this email: <A
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target=_blank>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR>To be removed from the list,
visit:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<BR><BR>For all other list information and
functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<BR>To edit your profile and to find
the IGC's charter, see:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/<BR><BR>Translate this email:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>